Gheorghe Asachi Technical University of Iasi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND STRATEGIC VISION

Gheorghe Asachi Technical University of Iasi presents a profile of notable strengths in research governance alongside specific, targeted areas for improvement. With an overall integrity score of 0.420, the institution demonstrates robust control over authorship practices and publication channel selection, effectively insulating itself from several risk trends prevalent at the national level. Key strengths are evident in its very low rates of hyper-authorship, multiple affiliations, and publication in institutional journals, as well as a healthy balance in its scientific leadership impact. However, this positive performance is counterbalanced by medium-risk signals in the rates of retracted output, institutional self-citation, publication in discontinued journals, and redundant publications, which exceed national averages and require strategic attention. According to SCImago Institutions Rankings data, the university's academic strengths are particularly pronounced in Arts and Humanities (ranked 8th in Romania), Physics and Astronomy (8th), and Mathematics (11th). To fully realize its mission as a "high-end research and education institution," it is crucial to address the identified integrity risks. Practices such as publishing in discontinued journals or generating a high rate of retractions directly challenge the pursuit of excellence and the responsible transfer of knowledge to society. By focusing on enhancing pre-publication quality controls and promoting a culture of impactful, original research, the university can fortify its reputational standing and ensure its scientific output fully aligns with its ambitious mission.

ANALYSIS BY INDICATOR

Rate of Multiple Affiliations

The institution exhibits a Z-score of -1.077, which is even lower than the national average of -0.712. This result indicates a strong alignment with a low-risk environment, demonstrating exemplary clarity in how researcher affiliations are reported. The university's practices appear to be more rigorous than the national standard, effectively avoiding any ambiguity. While multiple affiliations can be legitimate, disproportionately high rates can signal strategic attempts to inflate institutional credit. The institution's very low score confirms a commitment to transparent and straightforward representation, reinforcing its scientific credibility.

Rate of Retracted Output

With a Z-score of 0.342, the institution shows a higher incidence of retractions compared to the national average of -0.136. This moderate deviation suggests that the university is more sensitive to the factors leading to publication withdrawal than its national peers. Retractions are complex events, and while some signify responsible error correction, a rate significantly higher than the norm alerts to a potential vulnerability in the institution's integrity culture. This Z-score suggests that quality control mechanisms prior to publication may be failing more often than expected, indicating that possible recurring malpractice or a lack of methodological rigor requires immediate qualitative verification by management.

Rate of Institutional Self-Citation

The institution's Z-score for self-citation is 0.823, notably higher than the national average of 0.355. This indicates that the university is more exposed to this particular risk dynamic than its peers within the country. A certain level of self-citation is natural, reflecting the continuity of research lines. However, this disproportionately high rate signals a potential for scientific isolation or the formation of 'echo chambers' where work is validated without sufficient external scrutiny. This value warns of the risk of endogamous impact inflation, suggesting that the institution's academic influence may be oversized by internal dynamics rather than by recognition from the global community.

Rate of Output in Discontinued Journals

The institution registers a Z-score of 2.280, a figure substantially higher than the national average of 0.639. This result indicates a high institutional exposure to publishing in questionable venues, far exceeding the trend observed across the country. A high proportion of publications in discontinued journals constitutes a critical alert regarding due diligence in selecting dissemination channels. This Z-score suggests that a significant portion of the university's scientific production is being channeled through media that do not meet international ethical or quality standards, exposing the institution to severe reputational risks and signaling an urgent need for improved information literacy to avoid wasting resources on 'predatory' or low-quality practices.

Rate of Hyper-Authored Output

With a Z-score of -1.155, the institution demonstrates a near-total absence of hyper-authored publications, positioning it in stark contrast to the national average of 0.057, which shows moderate risk signals. This reflects a clear institutional policy, whether formal or informal, that effectively prevents the risk dynamics observed elsewhere in the country. In fields outside of 'Big Science,' extensive author lists can indicate inflation and dilute individual accountability. The university's excellent result shows a commitment to meaningful authorship, successfully distinguishing between necessary massive collaboration and questionable 'honorary' practices.

Gap between Impact of total output and the impact of output with leadership

The institution's Z-score is -0.603, a healthy value that contrasts favorably with the national average of 0.824. This demonstrates significant institutional resilience, as the university avoids the systemic national risk of depending on external partners for impact. A wide positive gap can signal that scientific prestige is dependent and exogenous, not structural. This institution's score, however, suggests that its excellence metrics are the result of real internal capacity and that it exercises intellectual leadership in its collaborations, ensuring a sustainable and self-sufficient model of scientific influence.

Rate of Hyperprolific Authors

The institution's Z-score of -0.392 is slightly better than the national average of -0.259, indicating a prudent and rigorous approach to managing author productivity. This profile suggests that the university's processes are more controlled than the national standard. While high productivity can be legitimate, extreme volumes often challenge the limits of meaningful intellectual contribution. By maintaining a low rate, the institution effectively mitigates risks such as coercive authorship or the assignment of authorship without real participation, thereby prioritizing the integrity of its scientific record over the simple inflation of metrics.

Rate of Output in Institutional Journals

The institution shows a Z-score of -0.268, indicating a very low reliance on its own journals, which contrasts sharply with the national average of 0.842. This demonstrates a clear institutional disconnection from a risk dynamic present in its environment, reflecting strong internal governance. Excessive dependence on in-house journals can raise conflicts of interest and lead to academic endogamy by bypassing independent peer review. The university's low score is a testament to its commitment to external validation and global visibility, avoiding the use of internal channels as potential 'fast tracks' to inflate publication counts.

Rate of Redundant Output

With a Z-score of 1.631, the institution displays a rate of redundant output significantly higher than the national average of 0.136. This suggests the university is more exposed to practices that artificially inflate publication numbers. Massive bibliographic overlap between simultaneous publications often indicates data fragmentation or 'salami slicing.' This high value alerts to the risk that a coherent study may be divided into minimal publishable units to boost productivity metrics. This practice not only distorts the available scientific evidence but also overburdens the review system, prioritizing volume over the generation of significant new knowledge.